PEACE CORPS/A.I.D.

COLLABORATION
ACTION PLAN

October 1990

Submitted to:

Arnold Baker
A.I.D./PPC
and
Jennet Robinson
OTAPS
Peace Corps

Submitted by:

600 Water Street S.W., NBU 7-7 '• Y>/V'_*.!:''>' telephone: (202) 484-7170
Washington, D.C. 20024 ; ..:JH ^" te)ex . 4990821MANSY fax: (202) 488-0754

1557-006
 MANAGEMENT SK MATIONAL
600 Water Street. S W, NBU 7-7 telephone (202)484-7170
Washington, D C 20024 telex 4990821 MANSY
fax (202) 488-0754

MEMORANDUM
October 2, 1990

To: Jennet Robinson

Peace Corps, OTAPS
From: Bruce L. Mazzie /
MSI Ij
Subject: Draft Action Plan
Enclosed find a revised draft of the Action Plan which includes the input
from our meeting of Thursday, September 27. The reponse from Mali is
integrated as well.
I have also attached a "cut" at a "one-pager" for the Peace Corps Director
and A.I.D. Administrator.
Waiting to hear from you.
Best.
 PEACE CORPS/A.I.0. COLLABORATION

An Action Plan derived from the recommendations of an evaluation of

cooperation between Peace Crops and A.I.D. outlines the steps required to
move the agencies from cooperation to collaboration. The Action Plan
recommends that in year one:
o USAIDs set up workshops at the beginning of project
implementation for all participants to establish roles,
responsibilities and schedules.
o A.I.D. instruct its field missions to look more closely for
opportunities to integrate Peace Corps volunteers in their
projects.
o USAID and Peace Corps mission directors jointly review
their programs and plans, to look for opportunities for
mutual support.
o Specific pilot countries be chosen for experimentation.
o A.I.D. expand the technical PASAs to include the fields of
agriculture and rural development and education, either from A.I.D.
S&T or from the Africa Bureau, and that Small Project Assistance
funds become available for education and special development
activities, particularly natural resource conservation and
management.
Recommendations for years two and three include:
o The Director of Peace Corps and the Administrator of
A.I.D. issue a joint statement affirming their support
for high level collaboration between the two agencies and
announce actions that have been or will be taken.
o The Peace Corps Director and A.I.D. Administrator put collaboration
on the agenda for the next regional meetings with their mission
directors and, if possible, co-locate the conferences.
o Peace Corps revise its Programming and Training System Manual to
include more references to the importance of collaborating with
USAIDs and ways to collaborate more effectively.
o Peace Corps increase the training of its staff in program planning
and project design and evaluation.
o The A.I.D. Administrator initiate a revision of Handbook III to
include a number of specifics that would strengthen collaboration.
o The technical PASAs be modified to permit funds to be used for
project/activity design and evaluation and for setting up data
management systems for monitoring and impact data collection.
A.I.D. and Peace Corps Increase staff exchanges,
particularly 1n positions which will Impact on field
guidance on program development and project
Identification.
 PEACE CORPS/A.I.D. COLLABORATION
DRAFT ACTION PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Management Systems International (MSI) completed an evaluation of
cooperation between Peace Corps/A.I.D. The central theme of the evaluation
is the need to move from cooperation to collaboration. Based on the
findings, MSI was asked to prepare an Action Plan outlining the steps
required of Peace Corps and A.I.D. to implement the recommendations in the
report.
Using the evaluation as the foundation for the Action Plan and in
consultation with Washington and the field staffs several recommendations and
a priority for implementation surfaced. Three recommendations require
specific actions in the field. They are that:
• USAIDs set up workshops at the beginning of project implementation
for all of the anticipated participants to establish roles and
responsibilities and implementation schedules.
• A.I.D. instruct its field missions to look more closely for
opportunities to integrate PCVs in their projects and for
possibilities for Peace Corps interventions.
• USAID and Peace Corps mission directors jointly review their
programs and program plans, to look for untapped opportunities for
mutually supportive development-enhancing activities.
MSI strongly recommends that the recommendations be implemented in a
number of pilot countries since:
• Countries chosen would be highly motivated.
• Concentrating efforts should produce tangible results and lessons
learned in a short period.
• Results could be evaluated and then disseminated worldwide and
would provide confirming evidence for other USAIDs and Peace Corps
offices.
The recommendations Peace Corps and A.I.D./Washington and field staff
are listed below in order of implementation priority by year:
YEAR ONE:
Conduct Workshops - USAIDs set up workshops at the beginning of
project implementation for all of the anticipated participants
(e.g., Peace Corps staff and PCVs, USAID contractors, PVOs, local
participating organizations, appropriate government personnel) to
establish roles and responsibilities and implementation schedules.

1517.005
- 1 - DRAFT
(10/90) October 2, 1990
 Seek Opportunities - A.I.D. Instruct its field missions to look
more closely for opportunities to Integrate PCVs in their projects
and for possibilities for Peace Corps interventions that might:
(a) lead to eventual joint A.I.D.-Peace Corps projects;
(b) facilitate, or ease the potential negative feelings about, the
termination of A.I.D. funding -- especially in grass-roots
activities; or (c) be supportive or test the results of USAID
policy reform activities.
Expand PASAs - The technical PASAs be expanded to include the
fields of agriculture and rural development and education, either
from A.I.D. S&T or from the Africa Bureau, and the Small Project
Assistance funds become available for education and special
development activities, particularly natural resource conservation
and management.
YEAR TWO:
Review Proqrams/Pro.iects - USAID and Peace Corps mission directors
jointly review their programs and program plans, to look for
untapped opportunities for mutually supportive development-
enhancing activities.
Gain High-level Support - The new Director of Peace Corps and the
new Administrator of A.I.D. issue a joint statement affirming their
support for high level collaboration between the two agencies and
announce actions that have been or will be taken to emphasize the
Importance of and/or facilitate A.I.D. - Peace Corps collaboration.
They should also invite field comments on this report.
Add to Agendas of Regional Meetings - The Peace Corps Director and
A.I.D. Administrator should put collaboration on the agenda for the
next regional meetings with their mission directors; if possible,
the conferences should be co-located so that joint A.I.D.- Peace
Corps meetings could be held to discuss collaboration.
Revise Training Manual - Peace Corps' Office of Training and
Program Support should revise its Programming and Training System
Manual (October 1989) before sending it to the field to include
more references to the importance of collaborating with USAIDs and
ways to collaborate more effectively.
Revise Training - Peace Corps increase the training of its staff in
program planning and project design and evaluation.
Revise AID Handbook - The A.I.D. Administrator should instruct the
group working on a revision of Handbook III to include a number of
specifics that would strengthen collaboration.
Modify PASAs - The technical PASAs be modified to permit funds to
be used for project/activity design and evaluation and for setting
up data management systems for monitoring and impact data
collection.

1517.005
- 2 - DRAFT
(10/90) October 1, 1990
 YEAR THREE:
Increase Staff Exchanges - A.I.D. and Peace Corps Increase staff
exchanges, particularly In positions which will Impact on field
guidance on program development and project Identification.
Reconsider Five Year Rule - Peace Corps reconsider Its rule that
staff assignments cannot exceed five years; longer tours would make
staff training more cost effective.

1517.005
- 3 - DRAFT
(10/90) October 1, 1990
 PEACE CORPS/A.I.D. COLLABORATION
DRAFT ACTION PLAN

INTRODUCTION
Management Systems International (MSI) recently completed an evaluation
of Peace Corps/A.I.D. cooperation. While the field work was conducted In
Africa those concerned with the evaluation believe that its recommendations
have worldwide applicability. The central theme of the evaluation Is the
need to move from cooperation to collaboration.
Subsequently MSI was asked to prepare an Action Plan outlining the steps
required of both organizations (both jointly and independently) to Implement
the twenty three recommendations contained In the report.

METHODOLOGY
Since all recommendations cannot be Implemented simultaneously, they
need to be assigned a relative degree of priority. However, an immediate
constraint becomes the comparative ease or difficulty of Implementing a given
recommendation. For example, decision makers may opt for several easily
implemented, medium priority recommendations rather than one which is a high
priority but would be difficult to implement. A third dimension -- budget --
will be incorporated as the findings are more refined.
As the priority/implementability trade-offs become clear, it will be
necessary to identify constraints to implementation and how they must be
addressed. One useful tool is Force Field Analysis which requires
participants to identify the Driving and Restraining Forces associated with
each recommendation and place them in equilibrium. The main tenet of Force
Field Analysis is that it is more productive to apply organizational energies
toward removing restraining forces than to generate additional driving
forces. Annex A contains an example.
Both A.I.D. and Peace Corps wanted an inclusive and participatory
process to be followed during the course of this exercise. Therefore, MSI
identified 40 people in two organizations whose views should be solicited.
The approach to information collection had five stages:
1. Receive comments from the universe of people selected regarding
priority/implementability trade-offs which would lead to the
reconstruction of the matrix mentioned above. (Accomplished June
1990.)
2. Generate a draft Action Plan including implementation steps for
discussion. (Accomplished July 23, 1990.)
3. Conduct a series of focus groups with a smaller number of people to
develop more concrete plans for those recommendations identified.

1517.005
- 4 - DRAFT
(10/90) October 1, 1990
 These discussions would Include the development of strategies to
mitigate restraining forces where needed. (Ongoing.)
4. Pretest the draft recommendations with an even smaller number of
Individuals most directly responsible for Implementation 1n both
Peace Corps and A.I.D. (Accomplished September 21, 1990.)
5. Prepare and submit the final recommendations with feedback from
A.I.D. and Peace Corps field missions Incorporated. (Accomplished
October 11, 1990.)
STATUS
Immediately after our first organizational meetings with Peace Corps and
A.I.D. a brief questionnaire was developed and sent to 40 people; 24 to
A.I.D. and 16 to Peace Corps. It was prepared in a format that encouraged
respondents to return their answers via facsimile. Twenty two questionnaires
have been returned and follow-up calls placed to all non-respondents. Of the
responses to date, 48% (11) are from Peace Corps and 52% (12) from A.I.D. -
17 have indicated their willingness to participate in focus group
discussions. We believe this is an adequate sounding upon which to base some
initial findings. The results of the distribution of responses can be found
in Annex B.
An additional source of views was gathered from field meetings to be
held with Peace Corps staff.

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Based on responses received 12 recommendations were assigned priority.
Each is discussed 1n terms of: 1) Its ranking in the survey (priority and/or
ease of implementation); 2) the objective to be achieved by the
recommendation; 3) the steps in its implementation, Including responsibility
and time factors, and; 4) the driving and restraining forces which influence
its implementation (force field analysis). The last factor in particular
will be more fully expanded in focus groups as a strategy to implement the
Action Plan is further developed.
The plan which follows is an attempt to solidify the process using
information from questionnaires, interviews and collective experience.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED AT COUNTRY LEVEL

Three of the recommendations listed below (Is 2 & 3 for A.I.D. and I 1
for A.I.D./Peace Corps) require specific actions in the field by USAIDs and
Peace Corps staffs. Although all recommendations are, in general, considered
to be of a worldwide nature, MSI strongly recommends that these three be
implemented in a number of pilot countries. The advantages to this approach
would be:
• Countries chosen would be highly motivated.

1517005 ' 5 ' DRAFT

do/90) October 1, 1990
 • Concentrating efforts on a limited number of countries should
produce tangible results and lessons learned In a short period
of time.
• Results could be evaluated and then disseminated worldwide
and, assuming positive results, would provide confirming
evidence for other USAIOs and Peace Corps offices.
We recommend that eight countries be selected for the pilot effort, two
each from: Latin/Central America, Africa, the Near East and Asia. AID and
Peace Corps could jointly select criteria upon which selection could be based
which might Include:
• Both Directors should each have at least two years remaining
In their respective tours.
• A history of previous cooperation (or collaboration) by the
two organizations in placing PCVs in AID-funded activities.
• At least one country program should involve a planned (or
likely) phase-out of AID presence while another should involve
policy reform activities.
• A compatibility of programs which will lead to sustained
levels of collaboration.

1517.005
- 6 - DRAFT
(10/90) October 1, 1990
 RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

PEACE CORPS

Recommendation: Easily Implemented

1. Peace Corps' Office of Training and Program Support should revise its
Programming and Training System Manual (October 1989) before sending It
to the field to Include more references to the importance of
collaborating with USAIDs and ways to collaborate more effectively.

Objective:
To provide Peace Corps field missions a framework and some operational
steps, supported by specific examples, to guide and encourage greater
field collaboration with A.I.D.

Action Steps:
1. Programming and Training Systems Manual (PATS) Workgroup Chairperson
place the recommendation on the workgroup's agenda at an upcoming weekly
meeting.
2. The PATS Workgroup, under the guidance of the Chairperson, assign
responsibilities for incorporating guidance, procedures, and regulations
for collaboration with A.I.O. into PATS Manual sections three and four;
Assessing the Country Program and Planning and Managing a Project.
3. Updating/revising the PATS Manual could begin immediately;
responsibility for preparation of components should be delegated, e.g.
availability of PASA funding and requisite administrative procedures,
encouragement of APCDs to review their programs and program planning
with their A.I.O. counterparts, preparation/presentation of illustrative
example(s) of successful Peace Corps/A.1.0. collaboration for inclusion
as an appendix, and other components to be identified by the PATS
Workgroup.
4. A timetable should be established for completion of identified tasks and
for workgroup review. Initial tasks and review should be completed by
the end of FY 1990 for inclusion in the revised PATS Manual to be issued
in the fall of 1990. Sufficient time should be allocated for the
Workgroup to review the revisions.

Driving Forces:
1. Motivation of PATS Workgroup to revise PATS Manual to improve the
management performance of overseas Peace Corps staff.

1517.005 - 7 - DRAFT
do/90) October 1, 1990
2. A high level of support within both Peace Corps and A.I.O. for greater
collaboration between organizations.
3. The functional task - manual revision - provides a focus to help both
Peace Corps and A.I.O. work out some operational realities.

Restraining Forces:
1. Time required for workgroup members to Interact with Peace Corps staff
to collect and compose information to facilitate greater collaboration
with A.I.D.
2. Limited knowledge of A.I.O. procedures and regulations.
3. Need to solicit substantial field level Input in order for manual to be
realistic.

- 8 - DRAFT
1517.005
(10/90) October 1, 1990
PEACE CORPS
Recommendation: Easily Implemented; High Priority
2. Peace Corps Increase the training of Its staff In program planning and
project design and evaluation.

Objective:
To Improve the Peace Corps staff's skills in program and project design
and evaluation focusing on the developmental impact of its programs.
This skills training would enable Peace Corps staff to interact more
effectively with A.I.D. project designers and evaluators.

Action Steps:
1. Director of OTAPS assume lead responsibility 1n developing a training
plan to address the outstanding needs of APCD's in project/program
design, including identifying funding/budgeting options and a timeline
for implementation.
A. This training plan should determine at what point in an APCD's
career the training should be offered - pre-service training in the
United States or in-service training which occurs on-site overseas
and thus offers a possibility for tutorial assistance on actual
projects.
B< Peace Corps must £lso determine If they have the skills/time within
OTAPS to provide project design/evaluation training which will
enable their APCDs to design projects in accordance with standards
generally expected by A.I.D., or 1f the use of outside contractors
will be required. If outside contractors are determined necessary
will this be to routinely conduct training in the U.S. or overseas
or to pursue a training of trainers approach to bolster Peace
Corps' capability to provide training.
2. The Director of OTAPS should assume responsibility for documenting the
procedures required to utilize current PASAs to fund training in project
design and evaluation for APCDs. Subsequent to researching this issue,
a simple memorandum documenting this process should be distributed to
APCDs and the PATS Manual Workgroup. To the extent possible, tho
training plan should recognize the need for training to be compatible
with A.I.D. project design processes and terminology (use of the Logical
Framework, development of performance indicators). This activity should
be coordinated with Peace Corps recommendation II so that the
availability of PASA funding for training, and the procedures to access
it, are incorporated into the PATS Manual.
3. OTAPS Director should determine to what extent, if any, Peace Corps
could participate In existing A.I.D. training programs. If

1517.005
- 9 - DRAFT
(10/90) October 1, 1990
 opportunities are identified, procedures and a time frame should be
established.

Driving Forces:
1. Improved APCD skills to design effective programs/projects can improve
program impact over time.
2. Increased ability of APCOs to access A.I.D. funding at the mission
level.
3. Improve Peace Corps' ability to determine and document the developmental
impact of its programs; and to use this information to modify or
redesign its projects to increase their developmental impact.
4. Potential to use PASA monies to fund project design training/studies at
the country/regional level.

Restraining Forces:
1. Limited ability of Peace Corps/OTAPS to secure increased budget
allocations to increase/provide project design training for APCDs.
2. limited time availability of APCDs to work on project/management design
because a large portion of their time is consumed by personnel
management and administrative issues.
3. Limited knowledge on the part of Peace Corps concerning using PASA
monies to fund project design and training.

'517.005 ' 10 - DRAFT

do/90) October 1, 1990
PEACE CORPS
Recommendation: High Priority
3. Peace Corps reconsider Its rule that staff assignments cannot exceed
five years; longer tours would make staff training more cost effective.

Objective:
To Increase the cost effectiveness of training staff and enable Peace
Corps to extend the benefits of Us staff's skills by reducing turnover.

Action Steps:
1. Put recommendation before Peace Corps policy committee.
•
Driving Forces:
1. Strong support by Peace Corps staff.
2. Increasing recognition that Peace Corps needs to upgrade the
professional capabilities of Us staff.
3. Increasing the cost-effectiveness of training Peace Corps staff by
permitting longer terms of service.

Restraining Forces^:
1. A reduction in opportunities for Peace Corps Directors to hire staff
because of lower turnover rates.
2. Reduced opportunities for a greater number of professionals to work for
Peace Corps - the original basis for the five year limit of staff
service.

1517005 - 11 - DRAFT
do/90) October 1, 1990
A.I.D.
Recommendation: Easily Implemented
1. The A.I.D. Administrator should instruct the group working on a revision
of Handbook III to Include a number of specifics that would strengthen
collaboration.

Objective:
To Introduce admire/rative procedures and guidance which will
facilitate program collaboration.

Action Steps:
1. A comprehensive memo from the administrator to A.I.D. staff spelling out
actions required to improve Peace Corps - A.I.D. collaboration is
prepared and this recommendation included.
2. The Chairmen of Handbook III Working Group directs the group to conduct
the recommended reviews.
3. Portion of Handbook III which should receive special attention should
include: Chapter I, l.C Programming and Design Considerations; Chapter
II, 2.C.III, Factors Affecting Project Selection and Further
Development, and; Chapter IV, 4.6, Exceptions to A.I.D.'s General
Project System.

Driving Forces:
1. The need to reduce any administrative impediments to program
collaboration.
2. The need to formally codify A.I.D.'s commitment to the policy.
3. Current revision of A.I.D. Handbook III by AID/PPC provides opportunity
to suggest new focus and add sections on collaboration.

Restraining Forces:
1. The number of competing "special interests" already incorporated into
A.I.D.'s project design process.
2. The slow process associated with the revision of A.I.D. Handbooks.

1517 oos ' 12 - DRAFT

do/90) October 1, 1990
A.I.D.
Recommendation: High Priority
2. USAIDs set up workshops at the beginning of project Implementation for
all of the anticipated participants (e.g., Peace Corps staff and PCVs,
US..ID contractors, PVOs, local participating organizations, appropriate
government personnel) to establish roles and responsibilities and
Implementation schedules.

Objective:
More efficient joint project Implementation leading to greater socio-
economic benefits to more people.

Kev Prior Events:

1. A.I.D. project designed, approved, authorized and funds available.
2. PCVs recruited and In country.
3. Pilot countries selected (as recommended by MSI).

Action Steps:
1. Mission Director approves the policy.
2. Project and/or Technical Office develops an agenda and a budget and
secures funding.
3. Project and/or Technical Office or outside contractor arranges workshop.
4. Results of workshop decisions are monitored over life of project.
5. Participants evaluate utility of conference.

Driving Forces:
1. More effective project implementation (A.I.D.).
2. Greater personal satisfaction and contribution to development objectives
(PC).
3. Establishment of a network of development professionals (A.I.D. and PC)
with shared objectives.

• ' 13 ' « . K ,
do/90) October 1, 1990
 Restraining forces:
1. Time, money required to plan and conduct workshops (A.I.D.)
2. Philosophical difference between organizations.

1517.005 - U " DRAFT

do/90) October 1, 1990
A.I.D.
Recommendation: Easily Implemented; High Priority
3. A.I.D. Instruct Us field missions to look more closely for
opportunities to Integrate PCVs In their projects and for possibilities
for Peace Corps Interventions that might: (a) lead to eventual joint
A.I.D. -Peace Corps projects; (b) facilitate, or ease the potential
negative feelings about, the termination of A.I.D. funding -- especially
In grass-roots activities; or (c) be supportive or test the results of
USA ID policy reform activities.

Objective:
To maximize PC-A.I.D. collaboration at the grass roots level while
adding new dimensions to A.I.D.'s phase-out efforts and measurement of
the Impact of policy reform.

Kev Prior Events:

1. The overall policy objective of collaboration affirmed (see
Recommendation Joint PC-No. _ )
2. The country Is designated as one of the pilot countries as recommended
by MSI (see above) or (3) the country Is targeted for attention due to
Its likely phase out of funding or Its policy reform activities.

Action Steps:
1. USAID Mission Director and Peace Corps Director agree to work toward
this objective.
2. USAID Project Development Office revises existing project design
guidelines as needed.
3. USAID project design teams routinely meet with Peace Corps staff during
preparation of the Project Implementation Document (PID) and Project
Paper (PP) to coordinate actions.
4. For some projects Peace Corps assigns team members to participate In
project design.

Driving Forces:
1. Desire to operational ize a long standing policy more fully (A.I.D. and
PC).
2. Greater breadth of understanding given to two situations of specific
interest to A.I.D.: phase out and policy reform (A.I.D.).

•
do/90) n * K
October i1, «
1990
3. Greater personal satisfaction and contribution to development (PC).

Restraining Forces:
1. Limited prior experience Involving PCVs with phase out and policy reform
act1v1t1es(A.I.D.).
2. Additional time placed on an already burdensome process (A.I.D.).
3. Concerns as to whether phase out and policy reform Issues are consistent
with the Peace Corps main focus (PC).

1517.005 - 16 - DRAFT
do/90) October 1, 1990
A.I.D.
Recommendation: High Priority
4. The technical PASAs be expanded to Include the fields of agriculture and
rural development and education, either from A.I.D. S&T or from the
Africa Bureau, and the Small Project Assistance funds become available
for education and special development activities, particularly natural
resource conservation and management.

Ob. feet/ ve:

Increase resources available to Implement an expanded collaboration
between A.I.D. and Peace Corps and Increased possibilities for joint
programs.

Action Steps:
1. Organize discussions with program offices of S&T, other central bureaus
and all regional bureaus of A.I.D. to see if opportunities for expansion
of PASA allocations exist.
2. Continue on from there with discussions with relevant bureau technical
offices on appropriate PASA roles and best locations for PASAs.
3. Ask each regional bureau to expand allocation of SPA to include new
natural resource management activities through Peace Corps.
4. Explore possibility of having PASA money come from one budget source.

Driving Forces:
1. Satisfaction with existing PASA arrangements and interest in Peace Corps
in including new priority areas.
2. Opportunity to work closely on a specific range of technical activities.
3. Special earmarks given to natural resources encourages expansion of
activities.

Restraining Forces:
1. Feeling on the part of field staffs that PASA arrangements are
complicated and difficult to manage.
2. Need to sort out functional account allocations in order to simplify
PASA expansion.

1517 005 - 17 ' DRAFT

do/90) October 1, 1990
A.I.D.
Recommendation: High Priority
5. The technical PASAs be modified to permit funds to be used for
project/activity design and evaluation and for setting up data
management systems for monitoring and impact data collection.

Objective:
Allow Peace Corps to expand the impact of the PASA resources through the
provision of complementary assistance.

Action Steps:
1. Identify current management and budget steps needed to permit PASA use
expansions.
2. Ask each agency to take appropriate steps to change PASAs.
3. Develop simple, agreed on guidelines for field posts on PASA management
requirements.

Driving forces:
1. Peace Corps Interest In continuing and expanding the PASA mode.
2. Need to go beyond personnel resources to make programs work better in
the field.

Restraining Forces:
1. PASA management Issues considered complex and not widely understood by
either agency.
2. Time needed to sort out management improvement of PASAs may be
prohibitive.

1517.005 - 18 - DRAFT
do/90) October 1, 1990
A.I.D./PEACE CORPS
Recommendation: Easily Implemented; High Priority
1. USAID and Peace Corps mission directors jointly review their programs
and program plans, to look for untapped opportunities for mutually
supportive development-enhancing activities.

Objective:
To further the development missions of both organizations particularly
1n the country development context.

Kev Prior Events:

1. The overall policy objectives of collaboration affirmed (see
Recommendation Joint PC-A.I.D. No. _).
2. The country is designated as one of the pilot countries as recommended
by MSI (see above)

Action Steps:
1. USAID Mission Director and Peace Corps Director agree to work toward
this objective
2. USAID Program Officer and Assistant Peace Corps Director identify points
of intervention In their respective planning processes. The most likely
ones are:
USAID: (1) preparation or update of Country Development Strategy
Statement (CDSS) (2) preparation of Annual Budget Submission (ABS)
Peace Corps; Country planning documents - Country Management Plan
and Budget, and Project Agreements.

Driving Forces:
1. Desire to continue a long standing policy (A.I.D. and PC).
2. Improved efficiency of operations (A.I.D. and PC).
3. Greater satisfaction and contribution to development (PC).

do/90) October 1,
« * K ,
1990
PEACE CORPS/A.I.D.
Recommendation: Easily Implemented
2. The new Director of Peace Corps and the new Administrator of A.I.O.
issue a Joint statement affirming their support for Ugh level
collaboration between the two agencies and announce actions that have
been or will be taken to emphasize the importance of and/or facilitate
A.I.D. - Peace Corps collaboration. They should also Invite field
comments on this report.

Objective
Give A.I.D. and Peace Corps staffs a clear signal on the importance of
the expanded collaboration. Provide guidance for each agency on the
priority areas for collaboration.

Action Steps:
1. Each agency provide its director or administrator with the agreed on
Action Plan for consideration in a joint statement.
2. Each agency prepare a field cable outlining the principal new areas of
expanded collaboration and asking for support for the pilot country
implementation.
3. A joint time table is drawn up with dates for implementation of action
item by each agency and referred to in the statement.

Driving Forces:
1. Strong support from Peace Corps Director.
2. Some interest by A.I.D. Administrator.
3. Timely linkage with preparation of Action Plan.

Restraining Forces:
1. Activity may be higher priority for one Agency than another because of
nature of recommendation.
2. Actual implementation will require more than top level support to be
institutionalized.

do/90) October 1, 1990

Previous Page Blank
A.I.D./PEACE CORPS
Recommendation: Easily Implemented
3. The Peace Corps Director and A.I.D. Administrator should put
collaboration on the agenda for the next regional meetings with their
mission directors; 1f possible, the conferences should be co-located so
that joint A.I.D.- Peace Corps meetings could be held to discuss
collaboration.

06.7'ect?Ve;

To ensure full commitment of senior field staff to the principle of

increasing A.I.D.-Peace Corps collaboration.

Action Steps:
1. Reaffirm the general policy statements by the A.I.D. Administrator and
the Peace Corps Director.
2. The Deputy Assistant Administrators of A.I.D.'s Regional Bureaus meet
individually with Peace Corps Regional Directors during the early
planning stages for regional meetings.
3. As planning for a regional meeting proceeds the subject of Peace Corps -
A.I.D. collaboration should be included by A.I.D. in Mission Directors
meetings and by Peace Corps for regional meetings.
4. The feasibility of meetings being held at the same location should be
explored.
5. If this is not feasible, the possibility of representatives from each
organization attending the others' regional meeting should be examined.

Driving Forces:
1. Maximize face-to-face opportunities for coordination at senior
management levels.
2. Provide an opportunity for senior members of both organizations to
reinforce their commitment to field staff.

1517.005 - 22 - DRAFT
do/90) October 2, 1990
Restraining Forces:

1. Extra staff time (and possibly budget) associated with holding the
meetings.
2. The problem of selecting a time which would be convenient to all the
participants.
3. Ability of Regional Directors and Assistant Administrators to allocate
time to the process.

1517.005
- 23 - DRAFT
(10/90) October 1, 1990
A.I.D./PEACE CORPS
Recommendation: High Priority
4. A.I.D. and Peace Corps Increase staff exchanges, particularly In
positions which will Impact on field guidance on program development and
project Identification.

Objective:
Increase numbers of joint projects and programs through Improved
understanding and Input to each organization's planning process.

Action Steps:
1. Pilot countries initiate one month exchanges between PTOs and program
officers and between APCD's and technical officers to learn details of
program operations and planning.
2. Peace Corps and A.I.D. identify positions in Washington in both
technical and project development offices for exchanges of personnel for
one or two years.

Driving Forces:
1. Strong Interest 1n both agencies in Increasing exchanges.
2. Possibility to recruit high level personnel for exchanges.

Restraining Forces:
1. Limited staffing levels in both agencies makes giving up slots for
exchanges problematic.

1517.005
- 24 - DRAFT
(10/90) October 1, 1990
 ANNEX A

FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS

GENERAL ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS

Recommendation No. 3: The new Director of the Peace Corps and the new Administrator of
A.I.D. issue a joint statement affirming their support for a high level of collaboration (not
cooperation) between the two agencies and announce actions that have been or will be taken to
emphasize the importance of and/ or facilitate A.I.D.-Peace Corps collaboration. They should also
invite field comments on this report

DRIVING FORCES RESTRAINING FORCES

Collaooration is the logical outcome of
many years of cooperation (A.I.D. and
PQ
Political imperatives (A.I.D. and PC)
Improved effectiveness of both agencies
(A.I.D. and PC)
• Cynicism regarding such statements
(A.I.D. and PC)
• Lack of commitment at DAA, Office
Director and senior Meld management
(A.I.D.)
• Time delays associated with receipt and
integration of field comments (A.I.D.
andPQ

1441-ttO/t*
 ANNEX B

A.I.D./PEACE CORPS COLLABORATION

Highest Priority Recommendations

Implementation
Responsibility Recommendations

2. Peace Corps increase the training of its staff In program planning

and project design and evaluation.
Peace Corps
3. Peace Corps reconsider its rule that staff assignments cannot
exceed five years; longer tours would make staff training more
cost effective.

USAIDs set up workshops at the beginning of project

implementation for all of the anticipated participants (e.g., Peace
Corps staff and PCVs, USAIO contractors, PVOs, local
participating organizations, appropriate government personnel) to
establish roles and responsbilities and implementation schedules.
A.I.D. instruct its field missions to look more closely for
opportunities to integrate PCVs in their projects and for
possibilities for Peace Corps interventions that might (a) lead to
eventual Joint A.I.D.-Peace Corps projects; (b) facilitate, or ease
the potential negative feelings about, the termination of A.I.O.
A.I.D. funding - especially in grass-roots activities; or (c) be supportive
or test the results of USAID policy reform activities.
The technical PASAs be expanded to include the fields of
agriculture and rural development and education, either from
A.I.D./S&T or torn the Africa Bureau, end the Small Project
Assistance funds become available for education and special
development activities, particularly natural resource conservation
and management.
The technical PASAs be modified to permit funds to be used for
project/activity design and evaluation and for setting up data
management systems for monitoring and impact data collection.

USAID and Peace Corps mission directors jointly review their

programs and program plans, to look for untapped opportunities
for mutually supportive development-enhancing activities.
Joint Peace Corps/
A.I.D. A.I.D. and Peace Corps increase staff exchanges, particularly in
positions which will impact on field guidance on program
development and project identification and design.

1517-003
 A.I.D. PEACE CORPS COLLABORATION
Most Easily Implemented Recommendations

Implementation
Responsibility Recommendations

Peace Corps's Office of Training and Program Support should

revise Its Programming and Training System Manual (October
1989) before sending It to the field to Include more references to
Peace Corps the importance of collaborating with USAIDs and ways to
collaborate more effectively.
Peace Corps increase the training of its staff In program planning
and project design and evaluation.

1. The A.I.D. Administrator should instruct the group working on a

revision of Handbook III to include a number of specifics that
would strengthen collaboration.

A.I.D. 3. A.I.D. Instruct Its fteJd missions to look more closely for
opportunities to integrate PCVs in their projects and for
possfofflties for Peace Corps interventions that might (a) lead to
eventual joint A.I.D.-Peace Corps projects; (b) facilitate, or ease
the potential negative feelings about, the termination of A.I.D.
funding - especially in grass-foots activities; or (c) be supportive
or test the results of USAID policy reform activities.

USAID and Peace Corps mission directors jointly review their

programs and program plans, to look for untapped opportunities
for mutually supportive development-enhancing activities.
The new Director of the Peace Corps and the new Administrator
of A.I.D. issue a joint statement affirming their support for a high
level of collaboration (not cooperation) between the two agencies
and announce actions that have been or will be taken to
Joint Peace Corps/ emphasize the importance of and/or facilitate A.I.D.-Peace Corps
A.I.D. collaboration. They should also invite field comments on this
report
The Peace Corps Director and A.I.D. Administrator should put
collaboration on the agenda for the next regional meetings with
their mission directors; if possbte, the conferences should be
co-located so that joint AJ.D.-Peace Corps meetings could be
held to discuss collaboration.

1517-003
 A.I.D. PEACE CORPS COLLABORATION
Recommendations Having Most Responses
for both Ease of Implementation and High Priority

Implementation
Responsibility Recommendations

2. Peace Corps Increase the training of its staff in program planning

Peace Corps and project design and evaluation.
3. Peace Corps reconsider Its rule that staff assignments cannot
exceed five years; longer tours would make staff training more
cost effective.
USAIDs set up workshops at the beginning of project
Implementation for all of the anticipated participants (e.g., Peace
Corps staff and PCVs, USAIO contractors, PVOs, local
participating organizations, appropriate government personnel) to
establish roles and responsibilities and Implementation schedules.
A. 1.0. instruct its field missions to look more closely for
opportunities to Integrate PCVs in their projects and for
possibilities for Peace Corps interventions that might (a) lead to
A.I.D. eventual joint AJ.D.-Peace Corps projects; (b) facilitate, or ease
the potential negative feelings about, the termination of A.I.O.
funding - especially In grass-roots activities; or (c) be supportive
or test the results of USAID policy reform activities.
The technical PASAs be expanded to include the fields of
agriculture and rural development and education, either from
A.I.D./S&T or from the Africa Bureau, and the Small Project
Assistance funds become available for education and spedal
development activities, particularly natural resource conservation
and management
USAIO and Peace Corps mission directors Jointly review their
programs and program plans, to look for untapped opportunities
for mutually supportive development-enhancing activities.
The new Director of the Peace Corps and the new Administrator
of A.I.D. issue a joint statement affirming their support for a high
level of collaboration (not cooperation) between the two agencies
Joint Peace Corps/ and announce actions that have been or will be taken to
A.I.D. emphasize the importance of and/or facilitate A.I.D.-Peace Corps
collaboration. They should also invite field comments on this
report
4. The Peace Corps Director and A.I.D. Administrator should put
collaboration on the agenda for the next regional meetings with
their mission directors; if possible, the conferences should be
co-located so that joint AJ.D.-Peace Corps meetings could be
held to discuss collaboration.

1517-003
 ANNEX B

SYNTHESIS OF A.I.D. RESPONSES TO FIELD CABLE

Countries which responded to the Draft Action Plan:

• USAID
Pakistan
Guatemala
Botswana
Tunisia
Burundi
Thailand
Lesotho
Mall
• Peace Corps
Botswana
Pakistan
Guatemala
Honduras
Costa Rica
Fiji
Togo
Mall

USAID Recommendation II
While a Handbook III revision will help emphasize the Institutional
interest in A.I.D./PC collaboration and clarify procedures, handbook
revisions are notoriously slow in being issued and project design
latitude is wide enough now to proceed in the field with collaborative
design. Since the opportunity is there, take it; but I would not expect
high impact from this recommendation. (USAID/Tunlsia)

USAID Recommendation 12
No problem with the idea of holding a workshop, but, Peace Corps
involvement should begin during project design phase. (USAID/Pakistan)
Supportive of this recommendation. (USAID/Guatemala)
A Project Implementation workshop is a good practice (whether PC is
involved or not), but the more critical first steps ar deciding on what
project to collaborate on, designing it with respective roles clearly
defined, and providing respective inputs. These are correctly
identified as priority events but explicit action is required on these.
It should not be assumed they will happen automatically. (USAID/
Tunisia)

1517.004
(9/90) - 1 -
USAID Recommendation 14
Support expanded of uses of PASAs. However, Mission 1s unaware of
technical PASAs other than for health, (this may Indicate a need to
Increase awareness of the PASAs and how they are used.) USAID/Pakistan
would prefer that SPA funding go directly from AID/U to PC/H to reduce
administrative burden. (USAID/Pakistan)
"The key to greater collaboration between A.I.D. and Peace Corps would
seem to hinge more on a Mission making collaboration a priority rather
than bringing In outsiders to Implement changes. (USAID/Guatemala)
Increasing use of PASAs In a broader range of technical fields sounds
sensible, providing extra funding Is made available at field level
through A.I.D. program funds (rather than operating expense funds, which
will surely be unavailable.) (USAID/TunlsIa)
Another good Idea. The PASA funds should be less restrictive regarding
field level use. It is better If the uses are determined by field
generated needs rather than Imposed from HQ. The current SPA funds
would also be more likely to be used more fully and more appropriately
If the guidelines were more flexible and each country could determine
the uses based on local needs. (USAID/Mall)

USAID Recommendation IS
Strong approval. Design, evaluation and MIS are integral to the overall
development process and should be supported by PASAs. (USAID/Pakistan)
This Is a logical extension of 14 and a Washington action. (USAID/
Tunisia)
From our experience this is already taking place. (USAID/Mall)

Peace Corps Recommendation II

The revision of the PATS manual to Include more references to the
importance of PC/AID collaboration, thereby providing a framework for
such collaboration, Is to be encouraged. It should be noted however,
that care should be taken to maintain the individual character and
distinctive nature of the Peace Corps. Collaboration should be defined
in this framework in such a way that the distinguishing features of the
agencies are enhanced through collaborative efforts, rather than muddle.
(PC/Pakistan)

1517.004 „
(9/90) - 3 -
 become more regularized and objective oriented within the broader
framework of development. An adjunct recommendation perhaps could be
the requirement of a regular (quarterly?) reporting system to sector
specialists In OTAPS which would allow the agency to focus on Its
sector-specific development achievements In ways that the previous CMPS
process and current IP8S process have not allowed for In detail. In the
event that training cannot be held 1n the country of service or
elsewhere due to funding limitations, 1t could further be suggested that
a correspondence course be created for the development of the
professional skills required of Peace Corps staff. (PC/Pakistan)
While some training of PC staff 1n program design and project
Implementation and evaluation Is needed, PC staff do not need to be
experts in A.I.D. procedures. A.I.D.'s clear comparative advantage lies
1n project design and evaluation supported with technically qualified
teams. It's Important that PC staff participate at key points to help
shape design and define PC role, but much can be left to the design
committee. (PC/Tunisia)
Agree that staff training in project design and evaluation Is essential.
First, It Is needed to make the PATS system effective and second, to
improve the dialogue between A.I.D. and PC. However, Peace Corps'
inherent limitations (i.e., five-year rule, low resource levels, only
one of its 3 mandated objectives with development implications, etc.)
are real constraints to the successful adoption of PATS In its current
form. Nevertheless, any movement to a more systematic approach to our
programming is a step in the right direction. (PC/Guatemala)
Agree that OTAPS should be responsible for PATS training. If done in-
house, OTAPS needs a level of effort similar to that employed for
Stagings. However, contracting this out might be the best solution
initially. There are numerous contractors competent to train others in
the A.I.D. logical framework and similar systems. In contrast, Peace
Corps has relatively few employees with these skills. (PC/Guatemala)
I would welcome more training for me and my staff in program and project
design and evaluation. However, I take exception to the statement
(Action Step Paragraph 2): "to the extent possible, the training plan
should recognize the need for training to be compatible with A.I.D.
project design processes and terminology." I feel strongly that Peace
Corps and A.I.D. should maintain their separate identities and their
separate programming processes. (PC/Costa Rica)
The need for training of key PC staff in program planning, project
design and evaluation is very evident. (PC/Honduras)
Excellent idea. These trainings and subsequent follow ups would best be
done after APCDS are in the field. These would need to be done very
often considering the rapid staff turnover in Peace Corps. A USAID
employee can be trained once and carry the knowledge with him to several
posts. With PC five year rule this cannot happen. (PC/Mall)

1517.004
(9/90) - 5 -
Peace Corps Recommendation 13
The end of the five year limit would have positive effects on the
professionalism and capacity of the agency staff. (PC/Pakistan)
Given global changes, PC needs to adapt, and place greater emphasis on
program Impact; allowing staff to continue beyond five years 1s a
logical and welcome change. (PC/Tunisia)
It would be helpful for each program sector to Identify the technical
resources that are available through USAID. (PC/Botswana)
Agree that the Five-Year Rule works against cost effective training and
the adoption of a systematic and rigorous project planning process.
However, our most Important professional employees 1n the field are FSNs
who are not subject to the five-year limitation. The longevity of their
employment, the high level of responsibility associated with their
positions, and our decentralized mode of operation counteract some of
the negative effects of the time limit on U.S. citizen employment. So
some improvement in our programming and ability to communicate with
A.I.O. 1s certainly possible, if we upgrade our training of FSN
professional staff. (PC/Guatemala)
Our premise should be that the Five-Year Rule stays. It has several
advantages and probably Is impossible to eliminate In any event.
(PC/Guatemala)
Key factors for successful collaboration between Peace Corps and USAID
are:
• Formal/Informal meetings between personnel to allow for in
depth knowledge and understanding of discrete program goals
for each mission
• Programming which ensures that volunteers are not assigned to
projects which place them in a "funding watchdog" position,
rather designing projects and volunteer tasks to complement
project design goals which meet skill transfer and capacity
building goals of Peace Corps at the grass roots level
• Ensure lack of redundancy in USAID consultant and Peace Corps
volunteer tasks by assigning volunteers to a specific
government agency/organization and not to USAID consultants or
personnel
• Continuity of program personnel/administration is necessary.
Limited tenure of Peace Corps program. (PC/Fiji)
PG-2 is one example of why most overseas PC staff agree with this
recommendation. If PC wants to be more professional development
organization then the five year rule has to change. More effective
would be two and a half year renewable (or now renewable) contracts with
no limits this combined with improved selection and screening in the

1517.004
(9/90) - 0 -
 hiring process would ensure better project management In the field.
(PC/Nail)

USAID/Peace Corps Recommendation II

No problem with recommendation but the experience has been that the most
successful collaboration occurs between technical staff who are Involved
in design and day-to-day management Issues. (USAID/PaMstan)
USAID and Peace Corps mission directors should jointly review their
programs and program plans to find areas where collaborative effort
would be beneficial to both agencies as well as to the country served.
This Initiative should then be duplicated on the project management
level (APCOs and Program Officers) for all program sectors in which both
PC and A.I.D. operate. (PC/Pakistan)
This recommendation can be implemented if PC and A.I.D. sit down and map
their game plan ahead of time. Then each agency can build decisions
. into their own programming processes without involving each other in the
exercises themselves -- which doesn't make much sense. Again, the more
focused and selective the joint action, the better. (USAID/TunisIa)
These kinds of meetings should be scheduled regularly with inputs from
the staff to guide the directors' discussions. (PC/Mall)

USAID/Peace Corps Recommendation 12

Certainly the nature and the direction of the collaborative efforts of
the Peace Corps and A.I.D. should be defined by the Director of the
Peace Corps and the Administrator of A.I.D. This would also have the
effect of creating policy for action at all levels of management of the
two agencies. Guidance, goals and definition from this level will be
vital to any long term attempt at collaboration in the field. Again, we
would recommend a policy which focuses on project sectors where we can
be of the most mutual assistance, given each agency's inherent
strengths. (PC/Pakistan)
Helpful signal. Leave specifies to field as much as possible. (USAID/
Tunisia)

USAID/Peace Corps Recommendation 13

This may be overkill, especially trying to co-locate director
conferences. Basic objectives can be achieved fairly simply by having
A.I.D. Regional AA and PC Regional Director attend each other's
meetings. (USAID/Tunis1a)
Neither PC nor USAID regularly hold regional meetings of mission
directors but this is still a worthy objective to be pursued whenever
such opportunities do arise. (PC/Hall)

1517.004
(9/90) - 7 -
USAID/Peace Corps Recommendation 14
Excellent idea. (USAID/Paldstan)
While increased staff exchanges may make a contribution over time, basic
uncertainty of getting the right people in the right slots does not make
this recommendation all that useful immediately to implementing this
initiative. It's apt to absorb a lot of time just managing personnel
exchanges. (USAID/TunlsIa)
This already occurs in a few cases at HQ level but Is only one way:
that is USAID people coming to PC. This is unavoidable given the five
year rule. To take one or two of those years out to do an exchange with
USAIO is impracticable. At field level it could be possible for USAID
personnel to do a PC field job for one contract if those employees could
maintain the higher level benefits and compensation package given to
USAID overseas staff. Shorter term exchanges would likely be less
valuable and less fruitful regarding PC/USAID collaboration. (PC/Kail)

USAID/PEACE CORPS GENERAL COMMENTS

In general, no problem with the draft action plan. The Mission is
supportive of increasing collaboration with Peace Corps.
As a general comment, A.I.D. and Peace Corps (PC) have tried to
cooperate and even collaborate for over a decade with varying success.
In my experience the willingness and energy of Country Directors and
their staffs is the most critical ingredient. Once that's there,
designing and implementing collaborative activities requires a carefully
sequenced involvement and programming of respective resources. Thus:
• PC/AID in the field need to sit down and strategize to
identify priority areas of common interest.
• Then they need to participate in selective design, especially
to identify respective roles and Peace Corps Volunteer
profiles.
• Then Peace Corps and A.I.D. need each to do their own thing to
get resources in place on time. (USAID/Tunisia)
As these comments suggest, my general recommendation is to keep this
initiative simple, practical, focused and limited to areas in the field
where there is real convergence of interest and willingness to work
jointly or at least in parallel. (Bear in mind that host country
governments will need to concur in any PPC/AID collaborative activity.)
Otherwise we're likely to just repeat the hype and the series of
Washington level meetings that have characterized similar initiatives in
the past, with relatively little impact on actual programs or developing
countries. (USAID/Tun1s1a)

1517.004
(9/90) - 8 - M U
 All of our training programs should Include a component addressing how
collaboration can be achieved (If feasible) with USAID. (PC/Botswana)
In the future, when we have new staff members, all of us need to make
sure that a briefing occurs on Peace Corps/USAIO collaboration and
Information 1s provided relating to the different resources available.
(PC/Botswana)
Lloyd Plerson and I have looked over the draft Action Plan. It looks
fine to us. AID/PC cooperation works best when you have country
Directors and staff who are Interested In working together to achieve
and promote It. We think that the Peace Corps Action Plan should stress
the Importance of cooperation from the very outset of a project's
design. Perhaps a requirement of project design might be the need to
consider participation with Peace Corps. We think also that a stronger
statement by the A.I.O. Administrator and the Peace Corps Director
stressing cooperation 1s Important to maximize Impacts of our joint
development efforts. The theme should be that we can both achieve more
by working together rather than separately. (USAID/Botswana)
Agree that the A.I.D. Administrator and A.I.D. Country Directors will
have to formulate and support an explicit policy to enhance
collaboration between the Agencies. The policy should focus on field
level, Information exchange and dialogue on country development problems
and projects. Periodic reporting back to headquarters should be
required, describing the collaboration which may emerge from this
dialogue. More push from above (I.e., Headquarters) may be needed on
the A.I.D. side than might be the case In Peace Corps. Peace Corps, in
Its accustomed role as resource scrounger, perceives Itself as having
something to gain from A.I.D. collaboration. On the other hand, A.I.D.
may feel that more collaboration will require significant time and
effort with little to gain in terms of achieving of its operational
objectives. (USAID/Guatemala)
Personnel/management limits long range project collaboration. (PC/Fiji)
USAID/RDO and Peace Corps Fiji/Tuvalu collaboration is effective. Post
would welcome suggestions for enhanced cooperation and collaboration.
Limited program personnel and TI limitations inhibit current program
expansion and USAID collaboration until at least 1992. (PC/Fiji)
Have no specific suggestions regarding individual recommendations, It
appears from my limited vantage point that action steps, and in
particular, restraining forces, have been realistically detailed.
(PC/Togo)
PC/Mali and USAID Hall are now involved in several forms of
collaborative activities. These are detailed in the IPBS submission.
The major reason that some things are happening between the two agencies
in Hall rests in the open channels of communication that have been
established here. There are regular bi-weekly meetings between the PC
program officer and USAID program officers. There are frequent project
specific meetings, memos, and telephone calls between APCDS, PCVS and

1517.004
(9/90) - 9 -
 USA ID staff. The two mission directors *;e also very supporting of
collaboration. (PC/Mali)

1517.004
(9/90) - 10 -
PEflCE CORPS / fl. I. D. COLLflBORflTION PD-flBC-52i
flCTION PLflN 1 OF i <24X>
1999
flCTION PLftN